How Trickery drives the Liberal Democracies

We set aside for now the Jews who say they must never be equated with non-Jews because it is shown in their Old Testament that they, and they alone, gave and took with God, quarreled with Him and demanded that He do things their way, which He did … though reluctantly. Thus, we accept that the Jews are a breed apart, and will therefore be excluded from most of the discussion that follows.

As to the rest of us mortals, it must be said that we all behave more or less the same way when something serious happens which causes us to worry about something. Of course there are cultural differences that nuance our behavior at the margin, but the core in all of us remains the same, and causes us to generate the same human responses to the things that affect our well being, our lives and our very existence.

Take, for example, the killing of the late President John Kennedy. To this day there are people who believe he was assassinated by a variety of players ranging from individuals who did not like him personally to the Mafia that did not like his love affair with a certain Hollywood actress, to the Cuban leaders who wanted to avenge the Bay of Pigs, to the Soviet Union that did not like his going to the moon before them … or whatever.

There are also conspiracy theories that relate to the 9/11 tragedy, put out by Americans – some very prominent – who believe that their own government caused the tragedy for one reason or another. And there are people who believe they have electronic circuits planted under the skin in their buttocks, allowing black helicopters owned and operated by the government to track their every move. And these people are so serious about their beliefs, they arm themselves and train to fight a federal government they are certain will come to disarm them.

Is there something similar to that sort of behavior in other cultures? Yes, there are. For example, the North Koreans believe that the South is conspiring with America to attack them if and when they weaken. The Russians believe that the Americans are out to humiliate them. The Sunnis believe that the Shiites don't like them and vice versa. Lindsey Graham believes that ISIS is plotting to attack America. The Pope believes that the devil is crapping capitalist dumps on every continent … and so on and so forth. And there is also the Jews who believe the whole world is against them, but enough said about these guys – or should I say these rivals to God?

The question now is this: What nuances may color the behavior of different cultures, differently? To be brief in answering this question, we concentrate on two cultures only, and discuss their differences. Looking at the current American culture, which is heavily influenced by the Jewish culture, we notice that every argument concerning the local scene is boiled down to a partisan consideration. For example, nothing is said by members of the “Right” that does not end with: Hate Obama. Similarly, nothing is said by the members of the “Left” that does not end with: Blame it on the Right. This is what the Jews have done to the once venerated system of Liberal Democracy.

So the question: How does that Liberal Democracy respond to something which happens on the international scene that both the Right and the Left might agree on? For example, given that both wings of America's political culture are dominated by those same Jews, how does each wing respond to something like say, the tragedy of the Russian passenger plane that fell from the sky in Egypt's Sinai Desert?

Because the fundamental tenet of the Jewish religion is to hate Egypt, and to wish it to perish with plagues inflicted on it by a God that has not yet responded to Jewish demands that He do so, the two wings of the American media go full throttle attacking Egypt for anything and everything that happens which may involve that country directly or indirectly.

The preferred Jewish approach to attacking someone being to look in the mirror and pick out the worst that they see in themselves and attribute it to their chosen enemy of the day, they incessantly do that to Egypt which they consider to be their enemy of every day. Thus, they command the American media – the Left and the Right – never to cease accusing the Egyptians of seeing a conspiracy that is plotted against them by someone. It is as if they want the world to believe the Egyptians see an anti-Semite under every desk, out to get them.

In addition, a trick that the Jews and their lackeys often use to make it sound like they speak with authority is to invoke a past incident which turns out to be a fictitious thing that never happened, or an incident that did happen, but the meaning of which they twist and spin mercilessly to suit their current purpose. Applying this trick to Egypt, they say that the Egyptians are doing now something they did before – perhaps out of habit. This sounds authoritative, does it not?

Yes, it would normally sound authoritative, except this time. And you find out what happened this time when you read two articles, both of which were written by members of the Left in America. The first article came under the title: “Conspiracy theories abound in the wake of Metrojet 9268 tragedy,” written by Ben Wedeman and published on November 13, 2015 on the CNN website. The second came under the title: “Egyptian Leaders Blame a Familiar Foe, Conspiracy, but Citizens Are Dubious,” written by David D. Kirkpatrick and published on November 15, 2015 in the New York Times.

Whereas you find in the Ben Wedeman article a complaint that “while investigators in the Sinai continue to comb through the wreckage of the Russian jetliner, many [non-officials] in Egypt's capital have already figured out who was behind the crash … [Egyptian] officials have lashed out at western[ers] for suggesting a bomb might have brought down the plane,” you find in the David Kirkpatrick article a ready acceptance that “[only] two weeks after the crash, most of the world has concluded it was most likely a bombing.” That is, Egyptians have no right to speculate about what may have happened, whereas the rest of the world does.

But why do people of the CNN and the Times variety embrace such ideas, and why do they let themselves be governed by them? The answer to that question was not given succinctly by our two authors, but was given by someone verbally at an earlier time. It is this: “Why don't the Egyptians just come right out and admit it was a terrorist bomb?” Well, my friend, there is something profound in this. It tells of people who are so fearful of what they were told to do and have done, they wish the Egyptians would join them in saying the thing that may turn out to be false. They wish for this to happen so that they save face if the investigation ultimately proves it was not a bomb.

In fact, that fear is corroborated by what Wedeman and Kirkpatrick neglected to mention. The Jewish trick requires that they mention the Egyptian plane which fell from the sky more than a decade ago, and tell their audiences that the Egyptians continue to refuse admitting it was pilot suicide … no surprise, therefore, that they are doing the same thing again. But why neglect to say this thing now when it was the popular thing to say only days ago?

Because the investigators of the Sinai crash have so far failed to find evidence that a bomb was the culprit. Thus, the Egyptian officials may turn out to have been wise for holding judgment till the completion of the investigation. And if they are correct now, they will be considered to have been correct about the plane that went down more than a decade ago. And that's what worries the editors at CNN and the New York Times who wouldn't know an air accident from the condom accident that allowed them to be conceived.

The Truth according to pathological Liars

How can you tell that someone is a pathological liar? You can tell when he tells you an obvious lie while swearing that he is telling the truth, and accusing someone else of lying. That's pathology, alright.

This is what you unwrap when reading the article that came under the title: “Lying through their teeth and their maps,” and the subtitle: “Factually inaccurate maps distort Jewish and Arab land claims,” written by Abraham Cooper and Yitzchok Adelrstein, and published on November 12, 2015 in The Washington Times.

But how can you tell that they are lying? Well, see for yourself. What happened according to the story the two authors are telling is that MSNBC published maps illustrating Arab and Jewish land claims, except that the maps were inaccurate, they say. Worse, they complain that “church groups have been using the same set of maps for many years, with no sign of slowing down.”

Upon this, Cooper and Adlerstein get on with the business of explaining why the maps are inaccurate. At this point, I must warn you of something, dear reader. If you're going to spend time reading that article, start by preparing yourself for a ride on the high-speed train of Jewish intellectual self-massaging (not to use another word). When so prepared, take the ride and never forget that a land belongs to the people who live on it, having inherited the thing from those who bequeathed it to them.

And so it was in Palestine. Before the advent of illegal Jewish immigration, the people who lived on the land were predominantly Muslim with a large Christian minority and a handful of Jews – all of them having lived there since the beginning of time, and all of them called Palestinians. This is what the maps are showing; the very truth that the two Zionists, Cooper and Adlerstein are trying to mutilate.

How do they try doing this? Well, because they cannot deny that even the Jews who lived on that land since time immemorial were called Palestinians, they admit that all those who lived there were Palestinians. But they refuse to call the land itself, Palestine; calling it Holy Land, instead. Changing the name of something is the sort of trick that the Jews always use to shatter reality. After they do this, they pick up the debris and reconstitute it into a deformed sort of new reality; one that suits their current purpose. You need to know that this approach is a Jewish trick used as often as they eat matzoh bread. Do not be fooled by it.

Having played their trick, the two authors now say: “See? There never was a Palestine.” And because there never was a Palestine, the Palestinians who lived there happened to live on a no-name land. And because the land had no name, the Palestinians could not make the claim that it was theirs, even though they lived on it since time immemorial; handed to them from parent to child ... generation after generation after generation.

In this case, to whom did the land belong, gentlemen? To which they respond, it belonged to those who bought it; these being the Jews who came into Palestine illegally but were loaded with money. They bought the land, you say? Yes, they bought the land. Now tell me this, Cooper and Adlerstein, from who did those wealthy Jews buy the land? Uh … Uh … Are you asking me a question? Do you really want an answer? Well then, let me think. Give me time … I'm thinkin', I'm thinkin'. Ah, here it is. Here is an answer as good as any: “The land was considered government land, which meant that neither Jews nor Arabs owned it.”

Okay then, tell me this you dishonorable mutilators of the truth: if there was a government that owned a land that was populated by Palestinians, would that government not be in charge of a state called the nation of Palestine? No, no, no, they scream, there was no Palestine. Why is that? Because we changed our mind. Now we say, there was no land populated by Palestinians, and there was no land owned by the Government. In fact, there was nothing. Nothing at all.

Okay, I'll take your word for it, and I accept trashing the truth you created but no longer wish to take ownership of. But if that's the case, how did the wealthy illegal Jewish immigrants acquire the land? Another question? Why do you keep asking us questions? … Okay, okay, we'll answer. Here is truth number two. It is meant to replace truth number one that is no longer valid: “Vast amounts of land were either desert, or otherwise not considered arable – until the Jews made it bloom.” That is the truth for now, till we change our mind again.

Jews? Wealthy Jews who farmed the land, you say? Yes, Jews are versatile, you know. They were Jewelers, musicians and textile workers, but they all had golden green fingers. They stuck the golden finger into the ground, and green shoots sprouted like Project Genesis you see in the TV science fiction series called Star Trek.

I get it now you bunch of thieving Jewish quacks. You say you're from the Wiesenthal Center? That's the outfit from where you chase war criminals, isn't it? Too bad the lies you're telling are not considered war crimes because if they were, you'd be chasing yourselves to the end of the Earth.

The WSJ Romney Style subnormal Condition

It happens at times that a dignitary is invited to one place and not an adjacent place because he was listed as persona non grata all along, or because he was disinvited after being invited upon the recent discovery of something that required he be put on the non grata list.

This sort of thing happens in Palestine/Israel more often than any other place because the sensitivities of the people in that region run high and deep. In fact, keeping someone out of the country or disinviting him or her after being invited, happens more often in Israel than Palestine. That's because the Jews have turned sensitivity into a card which they tied to the subject of survival and often used to put their guests on the defensive so as to better exploit them emotionally, and ultimately financially.

Although exaggerated by the Israelis – who often push the envelop to the limit – this behavior is considered the normal state of affairs in the world of diplomacy. This being the case, when it happens anywhere, including the Palestine/Israel region, hardly anyone takes notice.

However, there has been an exception lately when many of the world's dignitaries and organizations – some friendly to the Jewish causes – became fed up with Israel's conduct in Gaza, and wished to do their own investigation in both Gaza and Israel. What happened was that the Israelis banned those dignitaries and organizations from entering the country, or disinvited them when they said something that displeased the Jews. This done, the Israelis made sure the world noticed what just happened.

What is abnormal in all of this is that the Jews of Israel have managed to turn normalcy into something that is abnormally disfigured. It would have the Jewish fingerprint all over it as can be seen in the example that is discussed in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) editorial. That would be the piece that came under the title “Boris Johnson in Israel” and the subtitle: “The London mayor is a little too honest for the West Bank.” It was published on November 13, 2015 in the Journal.

The editors tell the story of the mayor of London who was disinvited from a number of Palestinian places, apparently because he said the things that displeased those who had invited him. As noted above, this is a normal occurrence ... something that happens all the time in the Middle East and elsewhere. But that was also the moment when the Jewish abnormal response played itself out.

To see this, we set aside the arguments put forward by the two parties in the region as to the merit of their respective causes. We also set aside the observations made by the mayor of London to concentrate instead on the way that the editors of the Wall Street Journal presented the case.

Two things can be said about that. First, for every one time that the Palestinians disinvited someone, the Israelis did so at least a dozen times. Thus, whatever the editors of the Journal think of the Palestinians for behaving the way they did, the editors must be inclined to have similar thoughts about the Israelis – except a dozen times more intensely. And the question to ask is this: What do they think of the Palestinians?

The answer is that the editors attribute the Palestinian disinvitation of the London mayor to what they say is the likelihood that the Palestinians are “infected with the kind of mindless hatred for Israel and its supporters.” This automatically says that the editors of the Journal think of the Jews as being infected a dozen times more intensely with the kind of mindless hatred for Palestine and its supporters. The symmetry is unavoidable.

Second, the editors do not stop here, but go on to posit: “This explains their economic backwardness.” The fact is that the Palestinians do not pop up in Washington every few months to ask for charity as do the Israelis. And neither do they run television commercials asking for Christian charity to feed the hungry, as do the Israelis. This automatically says that absent the yoke of occupation, the Palestinian economy would improve markedly. It also says that absent American charity, the Jews of Israel would end up looking as did their forefathers when held in the concentration camps of an earlier era … skin on bones.

The Jews paid Mitt Romney a million dollars to make a remark similar to that of the Journal editors. What did these editors get to display the same level of mental retardation?

What exactly is this Guy saying and why?

To be fair let's recall at the outset that when a writer submits an article to an editor, he loses control over the headline that will be chosen to represent the article. Thus, the fact that Jonah Goldberg's article has very little to do with the headline under which it appears, could well be someone else's fault; not his own. However, let's not lose sight of the fact that Goldberg is a senior editor at the National Review where the article appeared. No more comment from me on this matter.

The title reads: “Netabyahu's Framing of the Middle East Situation is Spot-on,” published on November 13, 2015 in National Review Online. The author starts it like this: “Americans could learn a thing or two from Bibi Netanyahu.” Well, let me tell you something, my friend; this is standard Jewish diet. For example, the Jews want the world to believe that jewelers, musicians and tailors from Eastern Europe went to Palestine and taught the indigenous farmers of the Land of Milk and Honey, also known as the Fertile Crescent – how to farm the land they have been farming for thousands of years, and how to plant it with produce, trees and everything good.

The Jews also want the world to believe that they taught the Americans how to make drones, taught the Chinese how to make airplanes, taught the Koreans how to make steel and taught the Germans what to do with magnesium. Next, presumably, they will claim that they taught every man on the planet how to make babies; and every woman how to get pregnant.

By that time, it is possible to imagine that their appetite for showing off how grandiose they are, will have exploded to such an extent, they will claim they taught God how to Big Bang the singularity He created, turning it into the full-blown Universe in which we all live, and ponder the good things that the Jews are doing for us. In recognition of that, let us pray brothers and sisters.

But if Netanyahu was not framing the Middle East situation like says the title of the article, what was he doing according to Jonah Goldberg? Believe it or not, Goldberg proved to be far from sympathetic to what Netanyahu was saying or doing. In fact, the author said two things about the politician, neither of which was flattering. He then started to compare George W. Bush to himself, Jonah Goldberg; and that's how he ended the article before closing with the obligatory political spin. Yeah, that's what he did. Read the thing and see for yourself.

Now, the two things that Goldberg said about Netanyahu are these: (1) “He made some controversial remarks – at least controversial at AEI, where I am a fellow.” (2) “Less controversial [but still controversial] and more intriguing was his description of the turmoil in the Middle East.” Goldberg tried to explain what all this meant to him, but got caught very quickly in the Jewish trap of rattling off endless polemics that lead nowhere and resolve nothing. In this case, the verbiage centered on the definition of words like “medievalism”, “Islamism”, “Jihadism”. “terrorism” and others.

This is the point at which Goldberg recalled the choice that was made by George W. Bush who settled on the expression “the war on terror.” But there are problems with this choice, says our author, who went on to describe three of them. Doing this to refute the points that were raised by the former President, Goldberg further inflated the volume of the polemics, yet added not one iota of understanding that would have helped to alter the current situation or replace it by something different.

Looked at from the point of view of adding depth to our understanding of the situation, this article is as devoid of merit as they come. But looked at from the point of view of scoring political points, some people will find that it has some merit.

Here is the political point that Jonah has managed to score: “President Obama went on a tear about how we in the West shouldn't get on our 'high horse' about it because … The reason why Obama's statement was so morally obtuse is that...”

He had to say something nasty about Obama, and he discharged his duty. As to how this might help the situation; the Jews don't bother with that. After all, they invented the God that is supposed to clean up the messes they create, and they expect Him to do so again and again.

Rivalry between a Host and his Parasite?

Can you believe it? If you do, can you see why nations, institutions and individuals everywhere and throughout time have riled at the idea of taking Jews into their midst? But if you cannot imagine that reality, look how this guy, Benny Avni, starts his newest column: “Arguments over settlements were a key accelerant on the flames of the Obama-Netanyahu rivalry.”

Well then? Did this not hit you in the face like a cannonball? Remember that rivalry means there is a rough sort of equality between two challengers. So now, you have this guy Avni telling the world that Obama, who is president of superpower America, is being challenged by little fart Netanyahu that is prime minister of parasitic Israel, a hellish midget-size enclave that wouldn't last a month if left to fend for itself without Obama's hand periodically feeding it with charitable donations from America.

And to think that Avni wants the world to believe there is equivalence between the magnanimous host that is Barack Obama, and the insolent parasite that is Benjamin Netanyahu – is flabbergasting to say the least. It is time, therefore, to ask: What happened to the braying “you can't compaaaare ... you can't equaaaate”? Where are the rabbis and those whom they trained to spew: There can be no comparison between Israel and anyone? The time has come for these guys to sing there is no comparison between a Jewish fart and a noble American.

There is a lot more in the article from which that jewel came; take a look at it and marvel. It came under the title: “On the big issues, Israel's left is against Obama & the EU,” published on November 11, 2015 in the New York Post. Did you get that too, my friend? Avni is now equating Israel's left – whatever that is – with the combined halo of Obama's America, and the European Union.

To crunch the numbers and give a perspective to that comparison, we begin with the assumption that Israel's left is half of Israel. We also recall that the combination US/EU is roughly equal to half the world's GDP. Because Avni says that half of one is equal to half of the other, solving the equation shows that Israel alone is equal to the whole world. This would be five million Jews for seven billion humans. It means that every Jew is equal to 1,400 human beings. Now think about it, who on Earth would want to see these creatures come live in their midst?

To honor the Jewish religious requirement of seeing a conspiracy everywhere and in everything, as well as to honor the requirement to blame the miseries of Jews on everyone else (those who conspire and those who don't,) Benny Avni took time to explain what the “rivalry” between Obama and Netanyahu is about. He says it is about America's unhappiness with Israel's continued effort to build Jewish settlements in occupied Palestine.

What he neglected to say is that building such settlements is an illegal activity, yet it is something that Israel does using American money. Therefore, the whole enterprise has the effect of making America a willing collaborator in the ongoing crime against humanity that Israel and World Jewry are perpetrating.

This is why America is upset, and why the Jews are upset that America is upset at Israel instead of loving it for the crimes it never stops committing. Don't ask me to explain this; it has to do with Jewish logic whose secret can only be deciphered using a key that Satan keeps inside the inner sanctuary of Hell itself. And I will not go there looking for a key or anything else.

There is a reason why this is an important issue for the Jews, however. It is that the crime of the settlements is the very foundation upon which rests the entire Zionist Project. Take away the crime and you kill the Jewish dream. What follows is how Avni explains this sordid mess.

He begins by blaming Obama for the conspiracy that is spreading among the Europeans concerning the boycott of Israel. He puts it this way: “Obama declared a crisis each time that Israel approved a plan to add housing in Jerusalem … Washington's protest then turned into a global meme.” The effect is that 40 years after the UN had equated Zionism with racism, the Europeans decided to label the Israeli products which are made in the settlements so that the consumers would stop buying them.

To tell what this means at the end of the day, Avni quotes someone named Herzog who said: “labeling products from settlements [is the] first step to ending the Zionist enterprise.” Thus, we conclude that Zionism is not only racism; it is also an ongoing crime against humanity.

Fake Doctors who dream of the Plague

Not since the time when the descendants of Abraham used to fantasize about plagues hitting Egypt – thus making possible the creation of a Jewish nation – have so many Jews and their lackeys fantasized about plagues hitting Egypt once again ... this time to turn the country into something resembling Iraq or Syria.

This is the unavoidable message you will read in Steven A. Cook's latest creation. It is an article he wrote under the title: “Egypt: Into the Unknown,” published on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations on November 10, 2015. What seems to have motivated Cook to write this sort of article is that he is annoyed by the leaders of Egypt and their supporters who fail to see that “the Egyptian state is weak,” but display “disturbing, craven, vehement insistence that all is well.”

To him, however, and to all those like him, “the country's leaders are in a state of panic. No one is in control.” What? What was that again, Steve? You say that the Egyptians are in a state of panic because they disturbingly, cravenly and vehemently believe that all is well? Tell me this, Steve, what kind of breakfast did you have on the morning of the day you wrote those words? You don't remember?

Well then, let me give you a little advice: end the love affair you are having with the bottle of Whiskey – if that's what you're having – or stop inhaling whatever it is that gives you those highs. And when you're all sobered up, look for a teacher of philosophy who will tutor you, and explain why someone cannot be in a state of panic, and also disturbingly, cravenly and vehemently believe that all is well. The two conditions simply cannot exist at the same time in the same person. Get it?

Now, let me tell you something else. Every time that a Jew or a lackey opens their mouth to say something about Egypt, they give themselves away by repeating the refrain that the Egyptians are blaming their failures on someone else when they have no one to blame but themselves. Sounds familiar? It sure does; and that's because it is the refrain you have yourself just repeated, Steve. What's wrong with it is that the Egyptians almost never admit failure … No, no, no – don't get me wrong now. I'm not saying they believe they are infallible; I'm saying something else. It is something that requires a preamble, however.

So let me tell you a story you probably already know since you visited Egypt many times. It is the story that Westerners used to tell each other about Egypt. It is about the country's own IBM. No, it's not that IBM; it is the one that goes: Inshallah (I), Bokra (B), Ma'lesh (M). The first means God willing. The second means tomorrow. The third means never mind.

These are the three Arabic words most commonly used in the everyday Egyptian discourse. They are manifestations of the culture's innate optimism, something that the people inherited from their ancient ancestors. In fact, the ancients loved life so much; they invented the concept of life after death because they wanted to live to eternity.

Thus, when they say God willing, they mean that God will eventually will for them what they seek for themselves. When they say tomorrow, they mean they are confident that tomorrow will see their wish fulfilled. And when they say never mind, they mean to say it's a small loss that will soon be replaced by a big gain.

And that's the optimism which prevents the Egyptians from seeing failure even when they do not succeed right away or succeed spectacularly. And where there is no failure, there is no blaming it on someone. Thus, when a Jew or his lackey says that the Egyptians are blaming their failure on someone, you know these are charlatans who accuse the Egyptians of what they see in themselves.

And what the Jews see in themselves so horrifies them, it constantly prompts them to run around and accuse everyone of being an anti-Semite that's out to harm them. This is also why they run around asking someone – like the Americans, for example – to help them get compensation for the harm they claim someone else has caused them. It's an acceptable way of life for them, and who are we to criticize them?

This being the reality of the situation, the article gives away its author. It says that Steven A. Cook is a fake doctor (of punditry) that doesn't know what he's doing. And so, he dreams of a plague that will give him the opportunity to pretend he knows what he's doing … and get paid for his work.

Label Israel an apartheid terrorist State

Benjamin Weinthal says he is a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. In case you didn't know, this is a kind of burlesque joint that nobody thinks is funny enough to be taken seriously, but nobody knew why. So now, Weinthal has decided to unveil the mystery by demonstrating why this is the case.

He wrote: “Label Europe anti-Israel,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “The EU is poised to make a huge mistake and hand the BDS movement a major victory.” It was published on November 10, 2015 in the New York Daily News. The author is discussing the decision of the European Union to label products made in Jewish settlements which are recognized in international law and the laws of civilized nations to be outposts of occupation and crimes against humanity.

Instead of applauding the decision of the EU – being one who fancies himself as a defender of democracies – he complains about the EU's decision, and bases his argument on several points, one made by Michael Oren to the effect that: “There are dozens of border disputes and 'occupations' in the world, but the EU decided to single out Israel.” Now, this guy Oren used to be Israel's ambassador to the US, and his job was to echo the old refrain: You can't compaaaare, you can't equaaaate anything that Israel or the Jews do because they are above everything and everyone … therefore must never be measured against anything.

So here he is now comparing Israel with three other nations, using the following words: “They are not labeling products from China, India or Turkey – only Israel.” This is not very funny, as you can see, which is why the burlesque joint to which Weinthal belongs is not taken seriously by anyone. But this is not all that's wrong with someone taking a word as awesome as 'democracy' and applying it to a snake pit they call Israel, a place that is too hellish to accommodate even the most stoic of demons. And yet, there are people – Christians and Muslims – who are forced to live in this caldron of perpetual pain and suffering.

The question to ask now is this: “What's the difference separating China, India and Turkey from Israel? And the answer is simple. It is that neither of the trio is occupying people it considers unfit to be given full citizenship of the country, yet considers them people possessing land that's so valuable, they cannot be set free. This is what the Jews are doing in Palestine, which is why they cannot accept the one state solution which would recognize the Christians and the Muslims as equal to the Jews; or the two state solution that will set them free from the yoke of Jewish occupation.

Not only that, but the trend over the past 70 years has been that the Jews who are not indigenous to Palestine, are stealing the land one piece at a time, first calling it disputed land then calling it “land everyone knows will someday belong to Israel, so why bother having a peace process and negotiating it away?” And this is how more than 80 percent of Palestine has now been gobbled up by the Jews with no end and no relief in sight.

Another question to ask is this: Where could the Jews be going with this? And the answer is hinted at by a bone chilling passage in the article. It is that Weinthal has revealed that Professor Eugene Kontorovitch told him the EU is labeling products made in occupied Palestine but not those made in Western Sahara despite the fact that the EU does not recognize Morocco's annexation of Western Sahara. Here again, the author is making a false equivalence to hide something – this time a very ominous something.

The truth is that Morocco has always considered Western Sahara to be Moroccan territory as did Algeria. Both nations fought to acquire that territory, and Morocco prevailed. It annexed the land and gave its inhabitants full citizenship at par with every Moroccan.

For the Jews to come now and say that occupying Palestine and considering its population not worthy of being Israeli citizens, yet controlling the territory in the same way that Morocco controls Western Sahara, says that the Jews intend to keep the Palestinian people under their control, and treat them as a species of subhumans a la perhaps “Planet of the Apes” whereby the Palestinians will be hired to make products in West Bank factories, but not be granted citizenship at par with Jews who may be born there, or may come from far away places.

And this is why the civilized people of the European Union said they had enough tolerating this ongoing crime against humanity, and left it to the prostitutes of the American so-called democracy to go on prostituting themselves like dogs hungry for something, not knowing what they hunger for.